Roger Federer

A forum to discuss all things Roger Federer, not relating to specific matches.

Fed presser 2

70 Comments on Roger Federer

  1. Ha, ha, deerslayer63! But I think, the Rafa thread is a joint venture at the moment. Most of today’s comments could have been posted here, too. 🙂

  2. Fed after being asked if he can win a Slam next year, “The French is a different story, but everywhere else it’s more on my racket than anybody else’s”

    #BowToTheMightyRafa
    #FortressRG

  3. And here’s your 2013 to infnity winner of the Stephan Edberg trophy, snark and all:

    http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/11/federer-im-just-rattled-times/49708/#.UnorXhBRCDc

    “Great, we’re positive,” he said sarcastically. “It was great to win two sets off Novak, and losing four. Losing a match, it’s really exciting. But I don’t know what to tell you. The season’s not done yet. Let’s talk about this stuff in hopefully four matches.”

    What a louse…………..

  4. RT @juanjo_sports: “Roger Federer is one more loss to Djokovic away from not having a winning record against either of the 2 best players of his era.”

    #BleatingGOAT

  5. No-one ever came out and said Djokovic and Fed aren’t the same era when Fed was beating up on Djoker during Djoker’s formative years……….it was just Fed demonstrating his greatness.

      • Agree, Fed’s greatness had nothing to do with wins over a young Djoker but the Federazzi disagree. And they were not a few wins, they were many.

  6. “to be in the same era you have to be in your prime at the same time for AT LEAST five years and probably more. Five years is the MINIMUM.”

    According to who?

    #Dimonpedia
    #MovingGoalPosts

    • ok what are your rules? you can’t just claim they are the same era and not tell us what your definition of “era” is.

      i can’t wait to see what your definition is. this is gonna be good.

      • An era, by definition, is a period of time characterized by particular circumstances, events, or personages. Assigning specific dates to an era renders the definition subjective. For me, therefore, the period during which Djoko and Fed played/still play is characterized by exactly that: they played or are playing in the same period.

        If you want to “excuse” Fed’s current losses to that fact that he is not of the same era as Djoker i.e. old, you have to also excuse Djoko’s early losses to Fed to the fact that he was not of Fed’s era i.e young.

        • i already did that

          Djokovic has had the age advantage in 11
          10 have been approximately even
          Federer had the age advantage in 9

          so overall: basically exactly even

  7. So your maths proves my point: they are of the same era! Their wins/losses over each other should not be “explained” by their relative ages.

    Different generations but the same era………………

    • it doesn’t prove that at all.

      what it proves is that you can’t attribute their head-to-head record to an age difference, since they have played the same amount of matches in Federer’s era as they have in Djokovic’s.

      • So what you are saying is Fed’s era was when he was younger, and Djokovic’s era is when he is older?

        What I am saying is there are no 2 different eras with these 2, they are playing in the same era, today and yesterday. They are 2 players of different generations playing in the same era.

  8. I was referring to the comment “because they played each other last month in Basel”

    Era is a subjective term. That said…

    Nole turned professional in 2003 (10 years ago) and Roger in 1998 (15 years ago).

    Nole was 18 and Fed 24 in their first meeting and Nole is 26 and Fed is 32 today.

    They have met h2h over an eight year span meeting THIRTY-ONE TIMES!!!

    They’re part of the same era obviously.

    #HOWMANYTIMES????

  9. ‘Era’ is a time span with certain characteristics, and everybody, who plays now, plays in the same era. Doesn’t matter, how old they are. When Rafa and Andre met inthe final of Montreal 2005, they played in Fed’s era, even if Andre was 35 and Rafa was 19. But they were from different generations. JuanJose nailed it. If you compare two players with each other, their generation matters. ‘Era’ is only a word for pinpointing the time, like ‘fin de siecle’.

  10. To the comment on age advantage we have to add one more observation, to make the comparison more meaningful. It used to be that Roger almost always beat Novak for many years in a row. As we often have written about… until Novak was a couple of months into his nearly-unbeatable mode in 2011, Roger and Novak were in the same draw at major tournaments 13 consecutive times… which we know means statistically that quite a few of those draws could not have been random. The preferential treatment Roger received with regard to playing Novak rather than Andy (or Rafa) means that Novak and him met even more often than they would have if all those draws had been random. Thus their H2H would have been more in favor of Novak if every one of those 13 consecutive draws had been random.

    • these ‘better’ ones are… some of these are really priceless. And the lot of them put together, all from mostly the same early humbler years are… well…. priceless.

      where is my master class? I mean card.

  11. Federer won three of his majors against unseeded players.

    Comparing two six-year periods of time:

    2003-2007: eight unseeded players and seven players seeded outside top eight made the finals of a major.

    2008-2013: one unseeded player and two players seeded outside top eight made the finals of a major.

    There are 24 majors over six years.

    Therefore, in the first period, 62.5% of players in the finals were outside the Top 8. 33% were unseeded.

    In the second period, only 12.5% of players in the finals were outside the Top 8. Just 4% were unseeded.

  12. Compricatorator,
    If you separate out how many times Roger won / lost in the finals versus Rafa and, separately, versus others, in those years you get the following running totals for the two periods.

    Running totals for Masters finals, first period:
    2002 Won/Lost to Nadal: 0 / 0 Won Lost to others: 0 / 0
    2003 Won/Lost to Nadal: 0 / 0 Won Lost to others: 2 / 0
    2004 Won/Lost to Nadal: 0 / 0 Won Lost to others: 5 / 0
    2005 Won/Lost to Nadal: 0 / 1 Won Lost to others: 6 / 0
    2006 Won/Lost to Nadal: 1 / 1 Won Lost to others: 8 / 0
    2007 Won/Lost to Nadal: 2 / 2 Won Lost to others: 10 / 0

    If you admit Rafa’s SF win at RG in 2005 their H2H becomes 2/3. (Rafa was on the verge of being number 2 and so almost met Roger in the F that year)

    Running totals for Masters finals, second period:
    2008 Won/Lost to Nadal: 0 / 2 Won Lost to others: 1 / 0
    2009 Won/Lost to Nadal: 0 / 3 Won Lost to others: 3 / 1
    2010 Won/Lost to Nadal: 0 / 3 Won Lost to others: 4 / 1
    2011 Won/Lost to Nadal: 0 / 4 Won Lost to others: 4 / 1
    2012 Won/Lost to Nadal: 0 / 4 Won Lost to others: 5 / 1
    2013 Won/Lost to Nadal: 0 / 4 Won Lost to others: 5 / 1

    It would be interesting to separate out those wins against others into: within top 8, seeded outside of the top 8, and unseeded. Anyone?

    And finally, had Rafa had a healthy knee in all the masters he missed or lost in due to his knee, starting with 2009, … the stats in the left column would be higher… e.g. 0/6 or 0/7 for meeting Roger at least one or more additional times in major finals (and I would venture to say who would have won), and for the same reason the column on the right would be different too, e.g. 3/3 or 2/4.

    I never post on X 🙂

    • —“To trick consumers into purchasing the new, more expensive Federer tennis racket, Wilson has entered into an endorsement deal with Roger Federer, through which Wilson provides Federer with his preferred older-model racket – which has been painted to look like Wilson’s latest Federer tennis racket,” according to the complaint. “This occurs year after year. Accordingly, when people see Federer play – in person, on television, or in photographs – they see him using an old-model racket that is disguised to look like the latest Federer tennis racket.”—

      So, Federer is involved in a cheating scandal! I’ll remember this!

      • I remember reading a while ago he played with an older racquet painted to resemble a newer model but hadn’t made the connection between that and his endorsement deal.
        I’m amazed this case has not made a bigger stink.

        #TakingMoneyUnderFalsePretences
        #PassingOff

      • @deucy, of course he will play Davis Cup because it will serve his goal of qualifying for the Olympics, not because he gives a damn about Switzerland. My point though is, Davis Cup is his only hope at glory now because he will have Stan’s help……….he cannot cut it all on his lonesome now…..

  13. He gets his chance to do his duty in a few weeks time 😉

    Next tie 31 January-2 February 2014
    Switzerland face a tough first round encounter away to Serbia. The Swiss won their only previous tie against Serbia in 2006.

  14. It’s the time of year when the top players start their preps for AO and most of the top players do not play in the early rounds. Fed, on the other hand, may want to play to avoid a mauling at Nole’s hands and that would be a good opportunity for him to notch up a DC match-win on his way to Rio…………..

    • The only problem with your logic is that Davis Cup is played after the AO and the tournaments in the following week are all 250s.

      • My bad, ed251138, just shows the amount of interest I have for the forthcoming tie………..of course it will be after AO. Let’s see what happens at AO first, shall we?

  15. This, from a Federazzi:

    “So it was very strange to say the least when he ended up getting routined himself by Robredo of all people. …………………..
    There is no doubt that the upcoming meeting with Nadal was weighing heavily on his mind. Even the knowledge that he has to play Nadal is now enough to psyche him out completely. That is the extent of the damage Nadal have inflicted on the Federer psyche over the years. Another loss to Nadal at the only slam they haven’t played at yet was too much for Roger to bare.

    It was a subconscious tank. Nothing more and nothing less. It was another disappointing and confidence sapping loss, but better than getting destroyed by Nadal in the last remaining slam. ”

    http://ruansfedererblog.com/

    There you have it: Fed tanked his match against T-Rob at USO 2013 to avoid a mauling by Rafa.

    And in the next breath they (Federazzi) will call Rafa a fraud etc…….

    For shame……………………

    • ritb. You have fallen for the ruan bait. His blog is notorious for promulgating anti Rafa propaganda and you have provided a a link to it 🙁

      • ed251137, no offence meant to fellow Rafans. But seriously, I enjoy reading the anti-Rafa blogs out there, they are quite funny although nowadays they are tinged with a bit of pathos, truth be told.

        I am not offended at all by the rubbish they print, just amused by how some people are so driven by hate they are willing to make fools of themselves publicly. But then again, they are anonymous behind those monikers………… the joys of internet freedom!

        I read Sean Randall’s Roger-X blog (although I do not post there anymore) for the same reason. There is something about an online meltdown that I find totally fascinating……….

      • At least Ruan is honest and up-front about his hatred for Rafa and why. His blog is called Ruan’s Federer blog, no subterfuge there. Compare that to other Fderazzi like Sean Randall whose sites masquerade as objective tennis blogs when in fact they are a platform for the propagation of anti-Rafa hate-speech.

        Ruan does not run Rafans off his site. He does not bully them. His tirades are directed at Rafa, not his fans. Sean Randall and his henchmen do the exact opposite on their site.

        I do not agree with Ruan’s views, but I have immense respect for him as a blogger and a man. I have none for the Sean Randall’s of this world.

    • Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahhahahaha!

  16. Fed has little choice but to play if asked to. The ruling is players must play at least four times IF CALLED UPON in the two years prior to the Olympics. If he plays and Switzerland loses he will not be called upon again until February 2015. Ditto 2016.
    In effect all he needs to do is show up for the 1st round matches and Switzerland to lose, as happened this year, and he will still have met the criteria laid down by the ITF.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


in the same Rolex Cellini Replica style as the team replica watches. I find the engraving far more satisfying, but would have liked to see a bit more depth to it. There is a little more branding on the PRC200. Firstly, Burberry handbags the 6 oclock sub-dial sports a basketball image in grey. Additionally, the pushers are edged with red (top) and blue (bottom), Breitling Replica Watches UK which is, to me, the coolest thing.